Authentic relationships are the foundation of CER initiatives.
In this section
Who is the community?
Community partners in CER have key knowledge and perspectives contributing to the research project. Partners might be formal or informal organizations or individual community members.
- Nonprofit staff, executive leaders, board members, volunteers, and program participants or clients
- Elected representatives, agency staff, department heads, and planners from local, state, and federal government
- Local business owners, employers, and chambers of commerce
- Teachers, school administrators, parents, students, and youth-serving organizations
- Religious leaders and faith communities
- Healthcare providers and patients
- Neighborhood associations, grassroots coalitions, informal networks, and community opinion leaders
KEY QUESTIONS
- Who is most affected by the research topic, knowledgeable of the community’s history and culture
- Who needs to be at the table to ensure the research is relevant, ethical, and actionable?
The answer may be an established organization or may be community residents who haven't traditionally had a voice in research decisions.
Building quality relationships
CER partnerships are often described on a continuum from transactional (a task-focused exchange) to transformational (characterized by mutual growth, shared purpose, and sustained engagement beyond individual projects).
CER partnerships
- Transactional relationships can be valuable and ethical, given a context of transparency and mutuality
- Transformational partnerships, however, have a deeper impact for all involved.
Transformational partnerships create a merger of purpose and identity where the work becomes genuinely shared and outcomes are interdependent. Partners move beyond “my goals” and “your goals” to “our goals.
Understanding each other's contexts
Building the trust and shared purpose that characterize transformational partnerships requires investment in mutual understanding. This means genuine curiosity about each other's contexts, constraints, and contributions as an ongoing practice, not just an initial exchange of information.
What researchers need to understand about community contexts
Historical context
- How has the university (or research generally) engaged with this community before?
- What can you learn from past relationships—both successes and missteps—to build trust and accountability?
Community priorities and goals
- What is the community working toward?
- What initiatives are already underway?
- What matters most to community members right now, and how might research align with and support these priorities?
Assets and strengths
- What knowledge, expertise, networks, and cultural wealth does the community bring?
- What successful strategies and solutions have community members already developed?
- What leadership and organizing capacity exists?
Decision-making structures
- Who needs to be involved in decisions?
- What approval processes and governance structures reflect community wisdom and values?
- What timelines work for the community (which may not match academic calendars)?
Cultural context
- What cultural norms, communication styles, and values should shape how you work together?
- How can you learn from and honor community ways of knowing and being?
Power and partnership
- What power, influence, and credibility do community partners bring to the work?
- How can you build on community agency while actively sharing institutional resources and decision-making authority?
What community partners need to understand about university contexts
Academic timelines
- How do research timelines (IRB approval, grant cycles, publication processes) compare to community urgency?
- Where can we build in flexibility, and where are there fixed constraints?
Institutional constraints
- What pressures around tenure, funding, and institutional expectations shape what faculty can commit to?
- How do these realities affect partnership possibilities?
What researchers can and can't control
- Where do faculty have significant flexibility (research questions, methods, engagement approaches)?
- Where is their control limited (funding timelines, institutional policies, departmental expectations)?
Academic outputs and impact
- How do researchers demonstrate impact in their careers through publications and presentations?
- What forms of scholarship and dissemination matter most?
- How can community voices and contributions be recognized?
Research ethics requirements
- What do IRB processes require and why?
- How do these protections for research participants shape project timelines and design?
- What input can community partners have in ethical review?
Understanding each other's contexts also means acknowledging power. Universities often carry institutional resources and credibility, but also a history of extractive relationships where researchers took what they needed from communities without reciprocity or accountability.
Individual partners bring different social positions shaped by race, gender, class, ability, and other identities. These differences influence whose voices get heard, whose knowledge is valued, and how comfortable people feel raising concerns.
Attending to power and difference
Rather than avoiding uncomfortable conversations, partners committed to effective collaboration name these issues early and reflect on them throughout their work together.
Building mutual understanding is not a box to check at the start of a partnership. It is an ongoing practice. Strong partnerships create space for open communication, address misunderstandings with care and accountability, and adapt together as circumstances change and the relationship deepens.
Reflection questions to consider
- What forms of power and privilege does each of us bring? Where might we have blind spots?
- How have power differences shown up in past partnerships or collaborations? What worked? What caused harm?
- How will we share power more equitably in decisions, resources, and knowledge creation?
- What will we do when power imbalances surface in our work together?
Partnership Models
There is no "right" way to structure a campus-community partnership and each evolves over time to be a unique relationship. However, it is helpful to review a few relationship models to inform your approach to working together.
Community advisory board
Community members meet regularly to provide guidance, feedback, and accountability to research projects
Can be convened for a single project or provide ongoing input across multiple initiatives
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
- Are CAB members compensated?
- How much decision-making authority do they hold versus simply being consulted?
Co-investigator model
Community members are named as co-PIs or co-investigators on research projects
Includes formal roles with budget authority, decision-making power, and authorship rights
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
- What are the university’s processes to support community co-investigators (IRB approval, grant administration, payment)?
- How will authorship and intellectual property be determined?
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership
Equitable partnerships where community members are involved throughout the research process—from developing research questions through data collection, analysis, and dissemination
Often formalized through MOUs or partnership agreements that specify roles, resources, decision-making processes, and how findings will be used
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
- How will decisions be made when partners disagree?
- How are resources and benefits shared?
- What happens to the relationship after the project ends?
Commissioned or community-driven research
Community organizations identify their own research priorities and request university researchers to address specific question
Community partner typically drives the research agenda and determines how findings will be used
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
- Who owns the data and findings?
- Are there restrictions on publication or dissemination?
- How does this align with academic expectations for scholarly output?
Sustaining partnerships over time
Beyond assessing research outcomes, partners need regular opportunities to evaluate the relationship itself.
Structured check-ins
Build in structured check-ins at key project milestones to ask:
- Are we following through on the agreements we made?
- Is decision-making power being shared as intended?
- Are communication patterns working for everyone?
- What adjustments would strengthen the partnership?
Navigating differences
Even strong partnerships encounter disagreements about methods, interpretation of findings, or how results should be used.
- Address conflicts directly and early by clarifying the disagreement, revisiting shared goals, and exploring options that honor both community priorities and research integrity.
- Sometimes conflicts reveal important differences in perspective that deepen the work. Other times, they signal a need to renegotiate or acknowledge limits.
Recommended Resources
On partnership principles and power dynamics
Addressing power dynamics in community-engaged research partnerships, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
- Analyzes power dynamics in community-engaged research through examination of existing qualitative data, comparing community-based participatory research (CBPR) with community-academic partnership models.
- Authors identify three tools—implicit bias training, positionality, and structural competency—that may help address inequitable power dynamics related to rank, privilege, racism, and discrimination in research partnerships.
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health Board of Directors Position Statement on Authentic Partnerships, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health
- Elements of authentic partnership, guiding principles of partnership from a leading association for community engaged research in public health
On community advisory boards
Community Advisory Boards in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Synthesis of Best Processes, Preventing Chronic Disease
- Describes best practices for forming, operating, and maintaining effective community advisory boards in CBPR, organized around three key phases: formation, operation, and maintenance
- Drawing from a literature review and the authors’ experiences with multiple CAB projects, the article addresses practical considerations including compensation strategies, power-balancing, and methods for fostering meaningful member engagement throughout the research process.
Tools and Resources for Project-Based Community Advisory Boards: Community voice and power sharing guidebook, Urban Institute
- Practical guidance for incorporating a community advisory board into projects to strengthen community empowerment and participation. Includes: membership composition, recruitment strategies, operating procedures, leadership structure, and compensation. Other practical tools include:
- Detailed checklists
- Budgeting tools
- IRB considerations
- Real-world examples from Urban Institute projects